ACO2 has taken over nothing.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete
Conclusions:
The observations of a global mean temperature “flat” with no linear trend since 1997 cannot be discarded.
Those observations do contradict the conjecture of a “greenhouse effect” for which there is no physically admissible definition at hand: there is no “heat trapping” between surface and air as the net radiative heat flow between those bodies is about nil
The main features of the atmosphere both on Earth and on Venus are easily deduced from the basic polytropic equations of the ideal gases.
The observations show that in the last decades as in geological times the CO2 content of the air is a consequence of the temperatures and cannot be their cause.
Truth n°2 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Global Mean Temperature?
[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays]
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
Nick Stokes,
It doesn’t matter how many blankets you throw on a corpse, it warms it not at all. As a matter of fact, the more blankets you throw on a cold corpse before you put it in the Sun, the more slowly it warms.
Just like the Earth and Moon. No atmosphere, higher surface temperature in sunlight.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by aplanningengineer
One thing some of the studies do is make estimates that since solar customers are using less electricity, the utilities can defer costly improvements and additions saving everyone money. This works way better in theory then in practice. (The thinking was common in the 90s but never bore much fruit.). I would say that power suppliers that are growing are generally healthy (barring major screw ups or regulatory challenges)
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by aplanningengineer
Keep in mind what you have is a fixed charge component on your bill that is trying to approximate (on average) a much more complex cost dynamic. If and as people game the approximation it will shift costs from intended recipients if it is not changed.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by aplanningengineer
Find out if the tariff arrangements will be grandfathered or if the rate structure is subject to change.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by popesclimatetheory
Limiting global warming to 1.5C is still possible, say scientists
DUH! Temperature regulation using the natural cycle does make this a no brain statement. Temperature will stay inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years, no matter what we do, and the 1.5C will not, cannot, ever be reached.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by ordvic
Ragnaar,
As i suspected, way above, it is never simple and corpocratocracy rules.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by GaryM
Journolism in the age of post modern science.
“Under the plan, Villa’s foundation, Thomson Reuters’ non-profit arm, will carry out the training under contract from U.N. Foundation. (The Thomson Reuters Foundation, according to its website, also carries on for-profit training sessions.)
Journalists from Australia to Peru, and from Britain to Zimbabwe will be given five-day training programs by instructors drawn largely from the ranks of former Reuters journalists.”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Judith,
Thank you for your explanation. I can’t recall the last time I saw a link to an authoritative, balanced article on the realities of nuclear power v renewable energy for making a large contribution to reducing global GHG emisisons.
I will send you links when I see them. I usually see them to late. You might like to register to receive the WNA Weekly Digest. It provides a short summary on one to three matters of interest that have occurred over the past month or so.
http://world-nuclear-news.us1.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=140c559a3b34d23ff7c6b48b9&id=096fbf7228
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Ron Graf
For a trillion dollars we could pave the pacific with Mylar(TM).
My favorite engineering fix though is spume bots (sea foam producing nano robots).
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Thanks Ordvic. Your comment has been said before. I simply feel that there are very few links to good, informative articles on policy relevant aspects of nuclear energy, while there are many pro renewable links. I feel that is unbalanced because renewables can archive very little to reduce global GHG emissions whereas nuclear can have a large impact (over a shorter time – e.g. by 2050 or so). Policies that incentivise renewables and policies that are retarding nuclear development are doing long term economic harm to the world – including causing avoidable fatalities.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang
Last week’s WIR Policy and Politics included these two links (both anti-nuclear:
Nuclear, the only energy technology with negative learning curve. Finland cancels Olkiluoto4. [link] [by FOE anti nuke spokesperson, Jim Green]
It is true that learning rate for nuclear is negative and has been since the late 1970’s. It’s also true nuclear is the only electricity technology with negative learning rate. The average learning rate for other electricity generation technologies over a century or more has been -10% to -20% per doubling (of capacity or energy supplied). This is well known and it’s been studied for decades. The cause is also well known. It’s the result of the anti-nuke propaganda from organisation like Greenpeace, WWF, FoE and anti-nuke activists like USA’s Amory Lovins, John Holdren and Mark Jacobsen, and our Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe, and Jim Green.
Here are three quantifications and explanations of why the learning rate for nuclear is negative since the 1970s.
Costs of nuclear power plants – what went wrong?
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_bg_papers/bp_wessS2011_wilson.pdf
http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/eprg0723.pdf
http://idei.fr/doc/conf/eem/papers_2013/leveque.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by iiequalsexpipi
So… You are saying that Saudi Arabia and the gulf states using oil money to fund the ideology of Wahhabism has nothing to do with ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Queda, etc.?
↧
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by iiequalsexpipi
I find how precipitation patterns will change due to climate change very interesting, although I am very uninformed on this topic, so perhaps someone can enlighten me or point me in the correct direction. I think I understand a few things though:
1. If temperatures increase then both precipitation and evaporation will increase due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Our climate generally acts to transfer moisture from the oceans to the continents; so if temperatures increase, there will be an increase in moisture transfer from the oceans to the continents, which means that the continents should overall get wetter due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. This is supported by empirical evidence that suggests that the Earth was overall drier during the LGM.
2. Global warming will cause the pole-ward shift of the jetstreams, which will move the Ferrel cells pole-ward. This means that the high pressure regions between the Ferrel and Hadley cells will move poleward. As a result, places like California, Southern Australia and Syria may become drier, where as places like Sub-Saharan Africa, Southern Mexico, Canada and Northern Europe may become wetter.
Although I’m not really sure as to the physical mechanism by which this poleward expansion occurs; I understand it occurs during the seasonal cycle, but during the seasonal cycle you have changes in the distribution of solar insolation, which would not occur due to climate change. Can someone please enlighten me on this? Specifically, why does the region of adiabatic falling at roughly 30 degrees shift poleward due to climate change.
3. With the poleward shift of the jetstreams, wind patterns may change. For example, some places near the subtropical jetstreams may see wind become more easterly and less westerly. For a place like California, which gets most of its moisture from the Pacific Ocean, this could make it drier. However, Texas, which is on the other side of the North American Cordillera, might benefit from the wind direction changing since it gets a lot of it’s moisture from the Gulf.
4. The reduction in the polar-equatorial temperature gradient means that the jet streams will slow down as there is a smaller height gradient in the tropopause (which means that air at the tropopause falls poleward slower). By the physics of Rossby waves, this causes the jetstreams to have larger amplitudes, shorter wavelengths, slower group velocities, and an increased frequency of having resonance phenomena.
Is that correct? I’m do not understand the physical mechanism by which the jetstreams shift poleward.
↧
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by iiequalsexpipi
Sorry for the typos in my last post. I should have written ‘its moisture’ not ‘it’s moisture’ and the last sentence should read ‘I do not’ not ‘I’m do not’.
↧
Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by Chief Hydrologist
Obama preaches to the choir on the nightmare of Syrian drought
Joseph told Pharaoh that his dreams came from G0d telling him to prepare for seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. The task of Pharaoh was to find a wise and honest man to put some of the abundance of the years of plenty away to provide for the years of need and avert a terrible tragedy. So who would you believe on rainfall in that region – Joseph or Obama?
Rainfall in the Mediterranean Basin is influenced by ocean surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific and the north Atlantic – and brings to large variability for year to year and to flow regimes that brings droughts and floods that persist for decades to centuries. Because of the importance of Nile River to the Egyptian civilisation water levels have been measured for 5,000 years and recorded for more than 1,300. The ‘Nilometer’ – known as al-Miqyas in Arabic – in Cairo dates back to the Arab conquest of Egypt. The Cairo nilometer has an inner stilling well connected to the river and a central stone pillar on which levels were observed. The exterior of the stilling well can be seen in the photo below. The Nilometer remained useful until the 20th century when major dams changed the Nile River flow regimes.
Source: WaterHistory.org – http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/cairo/
Water levels varied from ‘hunger’ at 12 cubits (a cubit is approximately half a metre) through abundance at 16 cubits and to disaster at 18 cubits.
D. Kondrashov and colleagues collated a record of Nile River water levels spanning from 622AD to 1922AD. They calculated the mean of high water levels at 18 cubits. This suggests that life in ancient Egypt might best be described as lived on the edge. Perhaps not surprising given Joseph’s source of information – is that they found a strong 7 year signal in the data. The record shows increasing water levels over the past millennia and a prominent spike towards the end. There were signals of variability – more or less flooding – on a 256 year regime.
Pacific variability has major impacts on global hydrology and can be followed in fine detail over the Holocene.
Source: Tsonis 2009
Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown above which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 12,000 years. It shows periods of high and low ENSO activity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high ENSO activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). Red intensity exceeded 200 – for comparison the red intensity during the 97/98 El Nino was 99. It shows ENSO variability considerably in excess of that seen in the modern period.
Whatever the cause – global hydrological variability – extreme drought, extreme floods and extreme temperature changes such as has not been seen in the 20th century – will occur again. The solution – such as it is – is to build prosperous and resilient communities. As Joseph tells us – to avoid catastrophe in the times of need requires a wise and honest person to manage things in the times of abundance.
The reality is that hydrology is so variable as a result of internal dynamics – and the system is so damnably complex that extracting simple causation is a hopeless task. It certainly can’t be done with narrative of jet streams.
↧
↧
Comment on Pondering Nepal’s hazards by Arohi Sharma
get to know about the unknown things
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by David Springer
Peter, knowing you, what appears balanced to you is likely to appear like a nuclear cheerleader article to anyone else.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rhyzotika
Rivers (help) regulate atmospheric CO2, new paper in Nature. Only .02% of global annual flux, but check out this quote:
“The atmosphere is a small reservoir of carbon compared to rocks, soils, the biosphere, and the ocean,” the scientists wrote. “As such, its size is sensitive to ***small imbalances*** in the exchange with and between these larger reservoirs.”
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/14709/20150514/how-rivers-regulate-global-carbon-cycle.htm
From the actual abstract: “Over shorter timescales, variations in the rate of exchange between carbon reservoirs, such as soils and marine sediments, also modulate atmospheric carbon dioxide levels1. The respective fluxes of biospheric and petrogenic organic carbon are poorly constrained, however, and mechanisms controlling POC export have remained elusive, limiting our ability to predict POC fluxes quantitatively as a result of climatic or tectonic changes.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7551/full/nature14400.html
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
